Citation Nr: 1322661 Decision Date: 07/16/13 Archive Date: 07/24/13 DOCKET NO. 08-19 787 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertensive vascular disease, to include as secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus. 2. Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability other than skin cancer, claimed as chronic severe dermatological damage from sunburn. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Shamil Patel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1969 to July 1971 and from January 1973 to March 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas, which denied service connection for the claimed conditions. The matter was remanded by the Board in November 2012 to afford the Veteran an opportunity to testify at a Board hearing. The Veteran subsequently testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a Travel Board hearing in March 2013. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran's Virtual VA file has also been reviewed as part of his appeal. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND At his March 2013 hearing, the Veteran testified that he received treatment from the Temple VA Medical Center for his claimed conditions. He stated that he had told his VA dermatologist that he experienced skin problems during service, though he was not certain whether any of his VA physicians had specifically related any of his conditions to service or a service-connected disability. VA examinations and opinions were obtained as part of the Veteran's claims. These reports also appear to reference findings from the Veteran's VA treatment records. However, the only VA record associated with the claims file is a November 2006 Agent Orange examination that reflects a diagnosis of hypertension. Therefore, the matter must be remanded to obtain the Veteran's complete VA treatment records and associate them with the paper or electronic claims files. See Dunn v. West, 11 Vet. App. 462, 466-67 (1998); Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992) (VA has constructive, if not actual, notice of this additional evidence because it is generated within VA's healthcare system and therefore deemed to be in VA's possession, even if not physically in the file). See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(c)(2); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c)(2), (c)(3). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Appropriate efforts should be made to obtain the Veteran's complete VA treatment records from the Temple VA Medical Center. If the RO/AMC is unable to obtain these records after making as many requests as are necessary, and concludes that they do not exist or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile, it should make a formal finding of unavailability. A copy of the formal finding should be associated with the claims file. The RO/AMC must also notify the Veteran that it was unable to obtain these records. The notice should: (a) identify the specific records VA is unable to obtain; (b) briefly explain the efforts that VA made to obtain those records; (c) describe any further action to be taken by VA with respect to the claim; and (d) notify him that he is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence. 2. After the requested development has been completed, any further development that may be warranted as a result of information contained in the recently acquired VA records, such as additional examinations or opinions, should also be completed. The RO/AMC should then readjudicate the merits of the Veteran's claims based on all the evidence of record. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).